Group Membership
Those in Group C were identified as Resisters by associate deans and peers, but some of these faculty in this group did not see themselves as Resisters; they believed they were indeed using and incorporating instructional technology. Two examples are Jeremy and Rebecca. Jeremy, in fact, considers himself to be one of the technology leaders in his department.
What's amazing to me is the amount of resistance, I mean, there are only two faculty in [discipline name omitted] who really use computers or the internet at all, [names a member of Group A] and I, and the rest of our faculty are very very resistant to it.
Jeremy was correct in his assessment that he did use technology, but he did not use instructional technology as a method. All of his uses of various technologies pointed to technology for information gathering and presentation rather than as an instructional method. This seemed to be a common use among members of Group C. Rebecca considers herself to be an instructional technology user, but when asked about what specific instructional technologies she uses, she talked about the past rather than the present, "Certainly as there have been more opportunities, more innovations in technology and things. I've tried to integrate them into the courses. In the beginning, some of the first things that I used were record players, tape recorders, you know, video, then VCRs." She then changed her personal pronouns and began using "we" instead of "I." For example, she said, "We have integrated the [lab] into our 1st year courses on a very regular basis; it's all in the syllabus," and, "There are also some things that we have put on our [discipline name omitted] website that also act as resource materials for the students," [emphasis mine]. Consequently, it is clear that Rebecca is not using instructional technology and belongs in group C, even though it is doubtful she would categorize herself as a resister.
Conversely, others in the group, Phillip and Claire, for example, saw themselves as Resisters, but were in fact using a substantial amount of instructional technology. Phillip defined instructional technology as being PowerPoint presentations, and indeed he had a strong resistance to the use of PowerPoint. However, when asked about the various instructional technologies he uses, he listed many items, including, "Well, I do use, as I said, the technology with ELMO and the VCR and there's this thing with the CD for the students and things like that." Claire also used a large amount of instructional technology but considered herself a resister. Various technologies that she has used in class included video, audio, a course web site, WebCT, and PowerPoint. However, both Phillip and Claire may be using instructional technology as an informational tool rather than as an instructional method.
The cases of Jeremy, Kimberley, Michael, and David clearly point to a confusion among faculty regarding the definition of instructional technology. Many research participants asked the researcher to define the word technology for them during the interviews. The researcher declined to do this, instead letting the faculty define technology and instructional technology for themselves. These faculty like Jeremy, Kimberley, Michael, and David, who were categorized in Group C, did not see themselves as resisters to technology, and indeed were not resisters to technology, but rather resisters to instructional technology. They tended to use technology as a way to disseminate information verses as a valid and useful teaching method.